Yesterdaywe expressed the hope that the Mensheviks, who have fine words to
say in Russkaya
Zhizn[1] on the in dependence of Social-Democracy, would pursue a
correct policy.

Onthe evening of the day before yesterday a Cadet meeting was held that
shattered all those hopes....

Thisis what happened.

Afterlunch on February 19, the Social-Democratic Duma group held a meeting. It
was proposed that they should attend a private conference arranged by the
Cadets. Some of the deputies objected strenuously. They said that it was a
disgrace for working-class deputies to go to liberal bourgeois who were
bargaining with Stolypin, and that the Social-Democrats should pursue a
proletarian and not a Cadet policy, should not lead the peasants to the liberal
landowner, and should not assist the formation of a Cadet
“Left” bloc. The Mensheviks got their own decision adopted.

Onthe evening of February 19, a meeting of some 300 members of the Duma
“opposition” was held at Dolgorukov’s apartment. It was
attended by Cadets, Narodowci (Polish Black-Hundred bourgeois nationalists), all
the Lefts—Trudoviks, S.R.’s and ... Social-Democrats. Some of the
Social-Democrat deputies did not go to the Cadets.

Whathappened at the meeting at the Cadet’s apartment?

Atthis meeting all the Lefts, all democrats, petty bourgeois (Narodniks,
Trudoviks, S.R.’s) and all Cadet-like Social-Democrats signed the Cadet
proposals. According to Tovarishch, the Mensheviks made the formal
proviso that their decision was not final, they would still have to
consult the group. According to Rech (the Cadet central newspaper)
however, nobody made any proviso at all.

Andso, there were Social-Democrats who, like faithful servants of the liberals,
accepted their entire plan, gave the majority of seats in the presidium (two out
of three) to the Cadets, and agreed to the Trudoviks taking the third place,
thus tying up the Trudoviks with the Cadets, and agreed to refrain
from explaining to the people what political significance the selection of the
presidium has, or why it is obligatory for every
conscientious citizen to decide that question from the standpoint of party
alignment, and not by private arrangement behind the scenes.

Cansuch conduct be justified by the fear that a Black-Hundred presidium would
be elected in the Duma? No. In Comrade P. Orlovsky’s article of yesterday,
we demonstrated that the Black Hundreds could not win, whatever
the division of votes between the Cadets and the Lefts.

TheMenshevik policy is actually determined, not by the danger of a
Black-Hundred victory, but by the desire to render service to the liberals.

Whatmust the policy of the Social-Democrats be?

Eitherabstain, and, as socialists, stand aside from the liberals, who betray
liberty and exploit the people, or give the lead to the democratic petty
bourgeoisie that is capable of struggle, both against the Black Hundreds and
against the liberals.

Theformer policy is obligatory for socialists when there is no longer any
substantial difference between any of the bourgeois parties from the
standpoint of the struggle for democracy. That is what happens in Europe. There
is no revolution. All the bourgeois parties have lost the ability to struggle
for democracy, and are struggling only for the petty, selfish interests of big
or small proprietors. Under such circumstances, Social-Democracy
alone defends the interests of democracy, and in so doing persistently
unfolds its own socialist views to the masses.

Thelatter policy is obligatory when the conditions of a bourgeois-democratic
revolution obtain, when, in addition to the working class, there are certain
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois strata capable of struggle for the democracy
that is essential to the proletariat.

Inpresent-day Russia the second policy is obligatory. Without ever forgetting
their socialist agitation and propaganda, and the organisation of the
proletarians into a class, Social-Democrats must, jointly with the
democratic petty bourgeoisie, crush both the Black Hundreds and the
liberals, as the situation may demand.

Thatis because the liberals (Cadets, Polish Narodowci (?), the Party of
Democratic Reform, etc., etc.) have already turned emphatically away from the
revolution and have entered into a deal with the autocracy against the
people’s freedom they talk so falsely about. It has now even transpired
that last year the Cadets helped the government obtain 2,000
million from France to spend on summary military courts and shootings;
Clemenceau said out right to the Cadets that there would be no loan if the Cadet
Party came out officially against it. The Cadets refused to oppose the loan for
fear of losing their position as the government party of the morrow!
Russia was shot down, not only by Trepov’s machine-guns, but by the
Franco-Cadet millions.

Itis impermissible for revolutionary Social-Democrats to support the hegemony
of the Cadets. It is, however, not enough for them to have spoken against going
to the Cadet meeting on February 19. They must demand, categorically and
unconditionally, that the group break with the Cadet-like policy and come out
forthrightly and openly in the Duma with an independent policy of the
proletariat.

Onthe question of the presidium, the Social-Democrats should have said: we do
not want our own presidium. We support the whole list of Lefts or
Trudoviks against the Cadets, that is, we support all three candidates
for the presidium, against the Cadet candidates, and will abstain if the
Trudoviks follow in the wake of the Cadets, despite our warnings. In any case it
would be essential to put up a candidate from the Lefts even though there would
be no chance of his being elected; at the first voting, the
number of votes given for him would show what forces the Social-Democrats could
rely on in the event of a struggle against the Cadets. And if it should turn out
that he obtained more votes than the Cadet, even if it were less than the
absolute majority required for election, the voting would show
the people clearly that this is not a Cadet Duma, and that the Cadet is not
everything in the Duma.

Theelection of the presidium is not a mere bagatelle. It is the first step,
after which others will follow. The die
is cast.

Theremust be either a Cadet-like policy which would mean turning the
Social-Democrats into an appendage to the liberals;

orthere must be the policy of revolutionary Social-Democracy, in which case we
should not begin by kowtowing to the Cadets, but by openly unfurling our
own banner. Then we would not go to the Cadets. Then we would call on the
petty bourgeoisie, and especially on the peasant democracy, to do battle
against both the Black Hundreds and the liberals.

Notes

[1]Russkaya Zhizn (Russian
Life) — a
Left-Cadet
legal daily, published in St. Petersburg from January 1 (14), 1907. On February
14 (27), from its thirty-eighth issue, the newspaper was taken over by the
Mensheviks; its contributors included P. B. Axelrod, F. I. Dan, V. I. Zasulich,
L. Martov, G. V. Plekhanov. The newspaper was banned on March 2 (15).